Integrated Analysis

Are video games a legitimate form of literature and/or art? The answer to this question depends both on who is asked, as well as what criteria are used to define literature and art. The definition of literature has evolved over the years to include more and more genres, such as the short story and film. Do video games deserve a place among those genres? Rather than attempt to engage this entire question, I will look at just one important piece of it—do video games have the same potential to influence their audience that other literary genres do?

Several philosophers and scholars have examined the potential for influence of literature over its audience, but the one who will be most useful for an analysis of the potential influence of video games is Mikhail Bakhtin. In his essay “Discourse in the Novel,” Bakhtin describes influence as a dialogic process that takes place between a speaker (or author) and the audience. Bakhtin describes two types of discourse—authoritative (or monologic) discourse, and internally persuasive (or dialogic) discourse. In describing this latter type of discourse, Bakhtin writes “In the everyday rounds of our consciousness, the internally persuasive word is half ours and half someone else’s” (345). According to Bakhtin, when people hear or read internally persuasive discourse, “it enters into an intense interaction, a struggle with other internally persuasive discourses” (346). This struggle is the core of an individual’s ideological development, and can lead individuals to new points of view and new values.

Bakhtin describes this dialogic process of influence in the context of the novel, but I believe that it applies equally to video games. Indeed, the discourse in video games may be even more dialogic than discourse in novels, because in many video games, the player literally chooses what the game’s character(s) will say and do. In most games that feature interactive dialogue, the game’s programmers provide the player with a number of options for their character’s speech, and the player chooses from among those options. Video games also often have story-related choices that they player must make, allowing the player some degree of ability to shape the game’s plot. This is a dialogic process between the player and the developer whereby they both shape the beliefs, attitudes, and actions of the character. In such an interactive medium, the discourse must necessarily be dialogic.

This dialogic process can at least partially be described by the idea of “embodiment,” developed by James Gee. According to Gee, players inhabit the virtual characters they control; Gee writes “Virtual characters have virtual minds and virtual bodies. They become the player’s surrogate mind and body” (258). Players have their own goals when playing a game, but as they play, they also adopt their character’s goals. Gee terms this as imposition; he writes “So in playing a game, we players are both imposed on by the character we play (i.e., we must take on the character’s goals) and impose ourselves on that character (i.e., we make the character take on our goals)” (260). This is the very definition of a dialogic process, and it allows the game to have influence over the player.

With the exception of whether violent video games cause the people who play them to become violent themselves, the potential influence of video games over those who play them has not been extensively researched. However, in 2008, David W. Simkins and Constance Steinkuehler studied the matter of ethical choices in video games, specifically role-playing games (RPGs). Games often present ethical choices to their players; there may be a “good” and a “bad” way to achieve a goal in the game, and the “bad” way sometimes involves hurting non-player characters (NPCs). Also, the “bad” route will sometimes be easier or offer more rewards (for example, stealing something that you might not otherwise be able to acquire easily). Simkins and Steinkuehler concluded that “players of RPGs engage in ethical decision making as part of their game play” (352). They further concluded that the decisions they made in the game had the potential to have an impact outside the game—“games, under the right set of conditions, have at least the potential to foster critical ethical reasoning through their ability to provide individuals spaces in which they can make significant decisions of situated (albeit in-game) import.” (352). Once again, this describes a dialogic process between the player and the game, and if games can “foster critical ethical reasoning” in their players, this certainly could lead to influencing the ethical choices that players make outside the game.

One particularly notable dialogic process that takes place within video games is interaction with NPCs; these are characters who are not controlled by the player. As in other genres, in order for this process to have its greatest effect, these characters must be believable. Petri Lankoski and Staffan Björk researched the idea of believable NPCs in video games in 2007, using criteria from cinema studies to determine if the NPCs in certain games were believable. They determined that while the limitations of technology may make it impossible to create characters that are fully lifelike, a “high degree” of believability can nonetheless be achieved. Applying these criteria to David Sarif, the character in Deus Ex: Human Revolution who I have chosen to analyze, reveals that Sarif does indeed meet the criteria for a believable NPC.

Sarif was chosen for this analysis because he is the game’s voice for the pro-augmentation side of the game’s debate on cybernetic implants for humans. The plot of Deus Ex: Human Revolution is centered around a conflict over the growing prevalence of so-called “human augmentation,” meaning cybernetic implants used to enhance the abilities of human beings. Sarif, as the CEO of a major biotech company, speaks strongly in favor of human augmentation at several points in the game. Sarif is also the employer of Adam Jensen, the game’s main character who the player controls, and also serves the role of a mentor. Barry Ip recently studied narrative in video games, and he noted that the stories in video games bear strong resemblance to stories that have been told in other genres for many years. Also, he noted that certain character archetypes are present in video games; the mentor is one of these archetypes. He concluded that these archetypes “offer added depth to the development of the . . . central characters” (226). This is arguably the case with Sarif; his status as a mentor may influence the development of the game’s main character, which may in turn influence the player’s choices in the game, and this influence may extend outside the game as well.

To determine if this influence actually took place, I chose to examine forum posts made by players about the game. I looked at one post which asked about players’ reactions to David Sarif as a character, and two posts which dealt with the players’ real-world attitudes toward cybernetic “augmentation” of humans. All these posts dealt heavily with the game’s take on cybernetic implants, and there are strong indications that the game influenced its players attitudes toward this same issue.

To begin with the post about Sarif (in order to better understand how his status as a virtual mentor may have acted upon players), opinions in this post were divided. Some of the posters believed that Sarif did not possess the qualities of a good mentor; they saw him as dishonest, manipulative, and believe he is ordering Jensen to do illegal things in order to make more money. However, other posters saw him differently. For example, one poster went so far as to write that he believed that Sarif was a good model for real-world corporate CEOs to follow:

I found that I agreed with everything he said. I felt like he truly wasn't in it for the money. His voice actor was also very good. At the least he was a really great boss and more ceo's should be like him lol.

Another poster cited Sarif’s mentoring qualities, writing:

He was very much a father figure - always looking after his kin and trying to stop competitors undermining or harming them. Wouldn't you defend your own if you thought people were trying to cause harm?

This poster also wrote that he believed that Sarif wasn’t just in the biotech business for the money, but rather that he actually cared about people’s well-being and wanted to work for the betterment of humanity. Some of the other posters also held this attitude, believing that Sarif was ultimately a good person who they felt they could trust and believe when he said that human augmentation was beneficial for humanity.

Moving on to the posts concerning real-world cybernetic “augmentation” of humans, one of these posts asked if people would be willing to have a computer chip implanted in their brain, similar to the one that Adam Jensen has in the game (the chip allows him to control his augmentations). Responses on this topic were mixed; some of the posters were strongly negative and even fearful about the idea, while others were more open to it. Interestingly, some of the posters who were open to the idea of receiving a cybernetic implant referenced the game in their replies. Probably the most interesting reply said this:

Yes purely because i agree with David Sarif i think it would be the next step of evolution

The way the poster phrases his reply—he “agrees” with David Sarif—indicates that there is a strong possibility that the game has influenced his thinking on the issue of human augmentation. In fact, not only does the poster state that he agrees with Sarif, he also references Sarif’s principal argument in favor of human augmentation—namely, that it is the next step in humanity’s evolution.

Another poster also references Sarif in his reply:

I would, but only by companies like Sarif Industries, to be honest.

The poster then goes on to compare Sarif Industries to another biotech company that the player investigates during the game, and concludes that Sarif Industries is an example of a “good” or “ethical” company. The game has provided an exemplar for what this person believes is the proper attitude for companies to take toward cybernetic implants in humans; this is another strong indication that the game has influenced his thinking on the issue.

Another reply does not directly reference the game, but it does bring up issues that are discussed in the game. One respondent asks the question:

Better question: would you allow a chip to be implanted, knowing said chip was created, programmed, implanted and maintained by a corporation or group of corporations whose primary objective is present and future profit?

This deals with an issue raised in the game; namely, the idea that all the game’s biotech companies are primarily motivated by profit (Adam Jensen confronts Sarif about this during one of their conversations, and Sarif denies being motivated by profit). Though the game is not directly referenced, this deals with a major issue within it, so the potential for influence here is strong.

In another post dealing with real-world human augmentation, one poster asks if people are pro- or anti-augmentation, and if they would get augmented themselves. Once again, opinions are mixed, but both sides of the debate show potential influence from the game. One poster writes:

Lol, you are crazy, i would never replace perfectly functioning parts of my body with mechanical ones. Even if they can perform better, our body is the most sacred thing we have and it's the result of hundred million years of evolution. And it's still evolving even if can't notice that. When i look at jensen or at the other augmented people in the game (like the bosses) i feel pity for them. To my eyes they are neither cool or monsters, they are people that for different reason had to give up their humanity, and for that reason they look sad and biologically dead.

The last two sentences of this reply indicate that the game has influenced this poster’s thinking on the issue of human augmentation. Although his reply suggests that he was already against the idea of cybernetic implants, the portrayals of augmented people in the game (which to him look “sad and biologically dead”) have reinforced this view. The imagery of the game has had a real-world impact.

However, another poster comes down on the other side of the debate, writing:

I believe in a higher set of morals and a higher plane for humanity's future.

I support David Sarif, augmentations, and.. THE WOOOORLD OF TOMORROW!

My eyes suck, I previously fractured my knee, and have nerve damage all up and down my left arm. I'd kill for augmentations, but more like the nano-augs from DX1. It would be nice to feel a hot cup of tea instead of seeing it's effects first. :P

The first two lines of this reply are particularly notable; the poster specifically mentions that he supports David Sarif, and the phrasing of the first sentence is similar to some of the things Sarif says in the course of the game. In the final paragraph, it is clear that the poster’s medical issues have a lot to do with his position; however, the language of the rest of the post suggests influence from the game, as well.

Conclusions and Implications

Can video games influence the people who play them? An analysis of some of the public discussion surrounding Deus Ex: Human Revolution suggests that they can. And because the game deals with an issue of increasing real-world significance, this influence may potentially impact public opinion and policy about the issue of cybernetic implants in the future.

Game developers should be conscious of this potential influence in crafting their games, and look to the possibilities the genre offers to use this influence in a positive way. If influence over the audience can be shown to happen, this could lead to the genre being taken more seriously as a storytelling medium. Game stories could be used to bring players to a greater understanding of real-world issues, and possibly lead them to consider new points of view on various issues.

It is important to note that this analysis is far from conclusive. It only examines a small part of the discourse surrounding one game. To gain a clearer understanding of the process of influence, more research like this would need to be done. This is only a first step. However, I believe that the strong possibility of video games influencing their players indicates that more research that goes beyond looking at people’s proclivity toward violence should be done.

Literature has been influential on many different subjects for thousands of years. If video games are to take a place among other literary genres, this process of influence needs to be better understood. The potential for story in video games should not be discounted; rather, it should be embraced and developed further as video games continue to gain popularity.